K & G Mining Co v. AMCI Mining Co
K & G Mining Co v. AMCI Mining Co
K & G Mining Co v. AMCI Mining Co
Facts
Acoje Mining Company Incorporated (AMCI) and Zambales Chromite Mining Company
Incorporated (ZCMCI) executed a Mineral Production Shared Agreement (MPSA) covering
mining claims in Zambales. Petitioner K & G Mining Corporation (KGMC) filed a letter-protest
claiming that the MPRSA was irregularly executed and that it covered claims that were already
held by KGMC. The letter-protest was resolved by the DENR Panel of Arbitrators in favor of
the KGMC. However, on appeal, the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) reversed the ruling.
Two months after the 15-day reglementary period to file an appeal under Rule 43, KGMC
filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65. The petition was denied by the court for the reason that decisions of the MAB are
appealable via a petition for review under Rule 43 and not by a way of a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65, and that the reglementary period for its filing has already prescribed.
Filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court under rule 45, KGMC
faults its previous counsel in failing to timely file the correct mode of appeal from the MAB
resolutions and submits that it should be excused from the repercussions of his ensuing
omissions as they amounted to gross negligence.
Issues
1. Whether the error of counsel in failing to timely file the correct mode of appeal binds
the client; and
2. Whether the filing a Petition for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari was
effective
Ruling
1. Yes. The error of counsel in failing to timely file the correct mode of appeal binds the
client because it is a settled rule that the mistake of counsel binds the client. While
there is a recognized exception to the rule that is - where the lawyers negligence was